'F*cking Loser' Files LOLsuit Against Mary Trump And NYT For Tortious Journalism And Mean True Words

Oh, whatever.

"I think he is a fucking loser, and he is going to throw anything against the wall he can," Mary Trump told the Daily Beast. "It's desperation. The walls are closing in and he is throwing anything against the wall that will stick. As is always the case with Donald, he'll try and change the subject."

That's really all you need to know about the lawsuit the former president filed against his niece and the New York Times yesterday, as first reported by DB. It's an embarrassing tire fire of nonsense, full stop.

How embarrassing? Here's some howling from the very first page of the complaint:

The defendants engaged in an insidious plot to obtain confidential and highly-sensitive records which they exploited for their own benefit and utilized as a means of falsely legitimizing their publicized works. The defendants' actions were motivated by a personal vendetta and their desire to gain fame, notoriety, acclaim and a financial windfall and were further intended to advance their political agenda.

The brazenness of the defendants' actions cannot be understated. [Emphasis added.]

All the best words!

Keep reading... Show less

Is Bob Woodward Full Of Sh*t? A Question For The Ages!

Over here humming 'Maria.' The one from The Sound Of Music, not the one from West Side Story, you dolts.

Daniel Lippman and Lara Seligman at Politico reported yesterday that stories from Bob Woodward's new book about Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley secretly (and frantically!) calling China to reassure them that Donald Trump wasn't going to surprise-bomb them "are greatly exaggerated, according to two people familiar with the discussions."

So put your wiener dog back in the garage and simmer down, Marco Rubio and everybody else screaming TREASON!

Politico goes over Woodward's reporting:

A forthcoming book by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa claims that Milley grew concerned about then-President Donald Trump's instability and the possibility that he might spark a war with China, prompting him to arrange a pair of secret phone calls with Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People's Liberation Army. The first was on Oct. 30, just four days before the presidential election, and the second on Jan. 8, two days after a mob of pro-Trump rioters stormed the Capitol.

During the calls, Milley reassured Li that the United States would not strike, and pledged to give his counterpart a heads up if Trump ordered an attack, according to The Washington Post.

"General Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we're going to attack, I'm going to call you ahead of time. It's not going to be a surprise," Milley is reported to have said.

Politico reported out the same claims and according to a defense official, they are "grossly mischaracterized." Not all wrong, mind you. "Grossly mischaracterized." Keep those words in mind.

The official said the calls were not out of the ordinary, and the chairman was not frantically trying to reassure his counterpart.

Politico's reporting says this wasn't Milley gone "rogue" either, like the book implies. Politico says he "asked permission" of (acting) Defense Secretary Chris Miller on what we're guessing was that second call. (The first call was before the election, before Miller was acting SecDef.) Miller more or less confirmed this to Politico, saying he thinks it was "perfunctory/routine." Politico has a lot of confirmations like this from various sources. Woodward and his co-author Robert Costa say they're stickin' by their reporting.

Meanwhile, Axios reported this week that in the days before the election, when that first call happened, then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper was ordering all kinds of back-channeling to the Chinese in response to what the Pentagon thought was bad intel the Chinese were getting about America's intentions. That's a heavy over-simplification of Axios's reporting, but like the Politico, it's quite a bit more nuanced than what Woodward is saying.

Which leads us to today's question:

Is Bob Woodward full of shit?

Keep reading... Show less
climate change

Joe Manchin Ain't See Why You'd Rush To Keep Planet 'Habitable' And 'Not On Fire'

We'll eventually get to clean energy, and if we lose a species here, an ecosystem there, that beats deficits.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D? West Virginia) said on CNN Sunday he's opposed to a central part of his party's plan to transition the US to a green energy economy, because he figures the energy market will get us there sooner or later anyway anyhow. On CNN's "State of the Union," Manchin told host Dana Bash that he's not going to support the $3.5 trillion Build Back Better reconciliation bill unless its overall price tag comes down, although he refused to say how much spending he would support. Manchin also said that while he supports higher taxes on the rich and on corporations, that level of taxation can't be so high that it leaves all the rich corporations so sad that they can no longer find any joy in creating jobs, either. He said "globally competitive" a lot.

For the most part, it was typical Manchin: No, I don't like all this spending, what about the deficit and inflation, let's just put the president's agenda on hold for a while and see how the economy does, and so on. While he was at it, Manchin also said for the first time that he opposes spending aimed at speeding America's transition toward clean electric generation.

This is because Manchin can't be happy with being an obstructive prick in general; he has to be an obstructive prick about slowing down the move away from a fossil fuel economy. We suspect the man may actually be composed of 30 percent coal. (But there's no way to know, since his coal company is in a "blind trust." For all we and he know, it's a llama farm now!)

Keep reading... Show less

What's Better Than Joe Manchin On One Channel? JOE MANCHIN ON EVERY CHANNEL!

Your infuriating Joe Manchin Sunday shows rundown

Last week, rather than negotiating with the Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders or Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Joe Manchin wrote a public "Dear Diary" for everyone (behind a paywall) in The Wall Street Journal. The idiotic op-ed had Manchin asking to "hit the pause button" on the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill, without giving many specifics about what he really wants. So, the Sunday shows, as they always do, invited Manchin on to give him attention further elaborate on his op-ed. Clearly, Manchin was not expecting the anchors to actually push him to explain himself.

On CNN's "State of The Union," after confirming Manchin would be a "no" vote on the reconciliation bill, Dana Bash asked the next logical question...which apparently Manchin never was prepared to answer.

BASH: [A]re you saying it's the price tag, it's the timeline? Both?

MANCHIN: It's the urgency. Do we have the urgency to do what they're wanting to do in such a quick period of time?

BASH: But can you be specific? OK, let's just -- let's talk about the dollar sign. [...] Do you have a specific number in mind?

MANCHIN: Here's a number you should be getting to. First of all, I have agreed to get onto the reconciliation, because that's the time for us to make financial adjustments and changes. [...]

BASH: So, what's the number?

MANCHIN: And bottom line is, what's -- the number would be what's going to be competitive in our tax code.

Bash kept pushing Manchin to answer the elusive "what do you want" question, while Manchin kept saying meaningless folksy things like "I have always said if I can't explain it, I can't vote for it."

BASH: And I'm -- again, I want to get to that, but just because this is -- this is the thing that people consume. Do you have a ceiling?
MANCHIN: I -- my ceiling is this, the need of the American people, and for us to basically take in consideration inflation.

Manchin knows the price is too high but when asked what the number should be, it's just word salad.

Keep reading... Show less

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)


©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc